SiteAre You an Ink-Stained Wretch?
On MediaBistro, Colman Andrews, a sometimes-freelancer and the co-founder of Saveur magazine, has an article called “What I Learned About Freelancing as an Editor-in-Chief.”
I agree with his advice to “lose the clever stationery.” He writes, “I just never quite trusted a writer whose letterhead described him or her as a ‘wordsmith,’ a ’scrivener,’ ‘écrivain’ (with or without the diacritical), or an ‘ink-stained wretch.’” Clearly, we writers should be presenting ourselves as seasoned professionals, not starving artists.
But later in the piece, Andrews insists that writers should never ask an editor what the magazine’s pay range is before pitching. This is in part because, as he says, “I like to have the flexibility to reward particularly good writers (and, by extension, penalize those who simply meet the contract, if that).”
In the forum thread inspired by the article, Andrews clarifies, “To writers who ask editors (in so many words or otherwise) ‘Can you tell me your typical pay scale so I can determine if you are worth pitching to’, I’d say, hey, you know what, we’re probably not worth pitching to. If you don’t want to waste your time writing a query letter without knowing what the possible rewards are, then by all means don’t. Believe me (I would have said from my editor’s chair), whoever you are and whatever your article’s about, we don’t need your contribution that badly. We’ll find some other way to fill our pages.”
So…we’re supposed to act like seasoned professionals, but let editors treat us like ink-stained wretches who write only for love and art? And it’s unreasonable to want to know whether a magazine pays 10 cents per word or two dollars per word before deciding whether to pitch them? And we’re to be penalized if we “merely” meet the terms of a contract? And — this one gets me the most — the pay we earn for our time and expertise is a “reward”?
I write full-time for a living, and I know the readers of this blog either do the same or aspire to do so. Like any other professional, we need to manage our time and workload so that we’re able to make enough to pay our bills. If I carefully craft a query letter and then spend time discussing an assignment with an editor, only to find out that the magazine pays ten cents per word, I’ve wasted a lot of time I could have spent pitching and completing profitable assignments. It’s completely reasonable to want to know a magazine’s pay range before taking the time to write up a pitch.
What we do takes time, effort, talent, and skill. Our pay is not a “reward” — it’s pay, just like editors get every week for their time, effort, talent, and skill. Magazine writers are professionals who run businesses — not starving artists who work in unheated garrets, smoking long cigarettes and typing up articles for nothing but love and bylines. Sure, there’s an art to what we do, but there’s a hell of a lot more to it than that.
Why do so many editors treat us — the professionals who supply the most important part of their publications — as mere nuisances who don’t deserve a living wage…or respect? Is it because so many writers are willing to write for the thrill of a byline? Is it because we cultivate the image of the starving artist?
What do you think? [lf]
14 Responses to “Are You an Ink-Stained Wretch?”
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Laura MacPherson
Said this on March 1st, 2007 at 4:12pm:I work for a regional magazine as a Production Director for a “day job.” (My true love, of course, is writing.) In the case of our magazine, the majority of our revenue comes from advertising. Article content is almost incidental–it has to be good enough to pass, but that’s about it. We pay freelancers 10 cents/word. (I would raise the rate in a second if I had any say in the matter!) Writers are definitely not the priority in our company, sad to say. I suspect other magazines are in the same category. As a writer who’s still trying to break into the “better” magazines, I sure wish I could change that.
Brian Westover
Said this on March 1st, 2007 at 4:17pm:The basis of professionalism is payment. That these requests for professionalism are so disconnected from the idea of professional compensation irks me a great deal. Without payment, we’re all hobbyists - which mean’s the editor can take professionalism and stick it in their ear. Editors need to decide, do they want professionals or amateurs?
Unfortunately, the barriers to our profession are dropping swiftly, and amateur writers are all too common in a world of word processors and blogs.What editors should realize is that professionalism (properly compensated, of course) is more important now than ever. Quality is the new diamond in the rough, and any publication that fails to acknowledge such will hurt for it.
Unfortunately, editors look at the rise of the amateur and think “Great, I can get writers willing to work for free!” In the end it will bite them, but it’s to easy to stare myopicly at the bottom line.
Er, sorry for the rant…
Heather
Said this on March 1st, 2007 at 4:19pm:Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Linda. It seems clear to me that what this is about is power and control. They want us to act professionally, but they don’t want us to put demands on them. They want to control how much they give us, and if they (or rather, he, because a lot of editors I work with are honest up front about their pay and don’t play games like this) tell us up front their range, then they’re stuck paying us decently, or somewhat decently.
This is why we need a union.
That’s my two cents, anyway.
Back to my garret…
Heather
LindaFormichelli
Said this on March 1st, 2007 at 4:22pm:Laura, I certainly don’t mean to dis magazines that pay writers ten cents per word — I wrote for that pay rate plenty of times when I was starting out. But I can’t work for that amount anymore, so it’s necessary for me to know what a magazine offers before I take the time to craft a query.
Toddie
Said this on March 1st, 2007 at 4:59pm:I’ll play devil’s advocate for a minute. My guess is that this editor’s rant has less to do with writers asking about pay rates at all versus those whose queries are crafted so that the pay issue is the primary one/only one. First, while I would hope that every writer would check a magazine’s submission guidelines before pitching, the realist in me knows that is not always the case. So I can definitely sympathize with an editor who is emailed a zillion pitching questions about pay ranges when that information is already out there. Second, even when the pay scale is not posted (and I honestly can’t remember in the case of SAVEUR), a writer can figure out what rung of the hierarchy the publication is on by the length of the articles, the readership demographic, etc., which should aid in the decision process to pitch or not to pitch to a particular publication. And finally, while asking about money up front can be done professionally, it’s hard to do, and many people come off sounding more crass and in bad taste rather than professional. Just my two cents.
lori
Said this on March 1st, 2007 at 5:00pm:I clicked over and read the whole article. The guy has a pretty negative attitude toward the people who provide him content for his product. Always nice to see such disdain coming from a potential client. Imagine how helpful (not to mention professional) the article could have been if he’d focused on what he’s looking for and what good writers do well, rather than barf his pet peeves all over the screen.
Note to all editors out there: writers aren’t mind readers. They can’t customize each and every query to fit individual likes and dislikes. (Why am I picturing a Playboy-esque editors’ centerfold web site, where editors can give their personal profiles and detail their turn-ons and turn-offs?) Writers can do little more than guess whether or not you like formal stationary or if you think follow-up calls/emails SIX MONTHS after sending a query is just beyond rude. It’s not like editors want to be found–they make it almost impossible to reach them directly either by email or phone.
And the bullshit about not being willing to quote money during the query stage is just that, bullshit. Any job inquiry should include a discussion about pay scale before a job offer is made. Nobody should wait to hear “you’re hired” before taking a job or assignment. Part of the mutual butt sniffing includes finding out if you’re on the same page financially. What’s wrong with giving a range so the writer knows whether or not to keep querying that market? Good lord — you’d think he’d be happy to receive fewer queries from pesky freelancers who want to know if he’s ready to shit or get off the pot.
Oh, did I mention I’m an editor? I’m not a big consumer magazine editor, so maybe I haven’t earned my holier-than-thou badge yet. But I think that guy’s attitude just stinks.
DianaBurrell
Said this on March 1st, 2007 at 5:04pm:I love Lori.
LindaFormichelli
Said this on March 1st, 2007 at 5:26pm:I agree, Diana. Anyone who includes butt-sniffing and “shit or get off the pot” in one comment is aces in my book.
Y’know, this is what The Renegade Writer is all about. You can’t read editors’ minds. Editors are people, and people have different likes and dislikes; what one editor will love, another one will hate. Since editors make it so hard to contact them for information, and neglect to communicate to writers what they’re looking for, all we can do is use our common sense and “gut feelings” to make business decisions. That’s why we advise writers to do what’s right for THEM instead of driving themselves crazy trying to predict what an editor wants them to do.
Dawn Papandrea
Said this on March 1st, 2007 at 5:37pm:As an editor (and freelance writer trying to break into a different market), I’ve been on both sides of this scenario, and I can safely say it’s like in any other area of life: there are fabulous editors and writers, and there are both editors and writers who think way too highly of themselves. In the end, it’s in the best interest of both parties to work together, respect each other’s roles and talents, and turn out the best articles possible — together!
Elaine Grant
Said this on March 1st, 2007 at 7:14pm:Andrews did all of us a service simply by writing a piece that’s so inflammatory that it sparked a great discussion, both on this forum and on the mediabistro forum. Frankly, I’m suffering some cognitive dissonance. I always liked Saveur, not that I read it often, so I’m troubled by the fact that Andrews seems to have such disdain for the writers who made it what it was.
Like Andrews, I have spent my professional life going back and forth from both sides of the desk. I was an editor at a national business magazine, and before that, an editor at two different trades. And I’m now in the midst of my third stint as a freelancer.
It’s absolutely true that being an editor teaches you a lot about how to be a great freelancer, but any decent human being will also tell you that being a freelancer should teach you a lot about how to be a great editor. First and foremost: be candid. That means discussing money up front, as one would with anyone providing a service, be it the proverbial plumber or a white-shoe lawyer. Second, have some damn empathy! Anyone who’s been a writer knows just how hard it is to do this work and how many hours it takes — and how much most of us care about producing something worthy of a a reader’s time! A great editor has standards, obviously, and should choose his or her writers carefully and critically. But once chosen, it should be a collaborative and helpful relationship, a win-win. That makes the product great and even better, the life of an editor great.
I realize I’ve gotten off on a tangent here, responding more to the flavor of this guy’s remarks than to the specific issue of money. But it all goes together. And attitude, on the part of an editor or a writer, goes a long way. It’s great to have the power to hire, dismiss, and even fire. But it shouldn’t go to your head. That said — I wouldn’t hire him.
Kristen
Said this on March 1st, 2007 at 7:17pm:Hear hear to Brian’s comments about payment and professionalism, and Heather’s call for a better or more useful union than what seems to be available.
Due to the amount of non-professional writing out there, I try to make my own work shine like a diamond to make it worth what I’m asking to be paid. This includes good grammar, spell checking, reliable sources, attention to deadlines, and willingness to do reasonable rewrites, among probably a lot of other things that I’m forgetting. I’ve been a magazine editor, too, so I try to be the kind of writer that would have made my editorial day a lot easier.
Tom Chandler
Said this on March 1st, 2007 at 8:56pm:Wow. Suggesting it’s rude to discuss money before a writer’s said “OK” to an assignment isn’t just stupid; it’s insulting.
I don’t write a lot of editorial work, but when I talk to my copywriting clients (new and old), my fee is the subject of intense interest to me, which is why it comes up at the very first meeting.
A client who found that irritating might get copy, but probably not from me.
I hope “Colman” gets the response he clearly asked for in his article. Or was it a cry for help? As in “help me, I’m an arrogant ass.”
Melissa Barton
Said this on March 2nd, 2007 at 1:24pm:“First, while I would hope that every writer would check a magazine’s submission guidelines before pitching, the realist in me knows that is not always the case.”
A lot of magazines don’t say anything about pay rate, even in Writer’s Market, and you really can’t always tell from demographic and style what they pay. Some trade magazines and newsletters pay $1/word, some pay nothing, some glossy newsstand magazines (travel in particular) “pay” in free trips. Regional and local publications also vary wildly in pay.
I can’t say that I’m comfortable mentioning pay rates in a query letter, but I do find it frustrating when I get a “Yes, but we only offer a byline” (especially from a publication spun off from a profitable newspaper), because I’ve just wasted both my and the editor’s time. I have bills to pay, just like editors, but unlike them, I don’t have a regular paycheck to look forward to.
Melissa Barton
Said this on March 2nd, 2007 at 1:42pm:unless, of course that practiced journalist was, say, John McPhee, who can write great stories about rocks
Oh, grrr at Andrews. McPhee is indeed my nonfiction hero, but the implication that rocks are so boring only McPhee can make them interesting gets under my geo-trained skin. And it’s also not true.